Mordred

Easily done. However it does demonstrate a key difference between philosophy and scientific methodology. When you apply a mathematical model. Ypu specify the conditions that model is valid for. So its more difficult to get "caught up into...". Where a verbal debate is far easier to get sidetracked.

I saw that, here is the thing. The OP Isn't asking us to define reality. His OP specifies what is the better methodology to define reality. Science or philosophy.

In a sense being a programmer as one of my many talents I have an excellent handle on how computers and automated equipment works. This includes highly advanced robotic systems. I even studied animatronics for a while. There is a huge difference between how chemical vs electronic signals. However that aside the human mind has capabilities we have never been able to even simulate. Intuition being one exanple as well as true emotion. Yes we can simulate emotion but were a long ways away from true emotion Guessing what we might one day be capable or what our AI may or may not be capable of in the future is guesswork plain and simple. Even then one just has to identify the differences between real and simulation then develop a test. There will always be some differences. With todays understanding repeatability is a valid test. Will we get greater mistakes simply because the machine has AI. Seems counter productive to program greater errors due to tiredness and emotion.

Isn't this talk about AI computer simulation etc off topic for the OP of this thread? Isn't this thread not suppose to be about philosophy vs science? Secondly everyone should keep personal slurs to themselves. As we have no AI computer, we really do not know how consistent its responses would be. Ie when its tired or emotional. In humans the last two induces a greater chance of making mistakes. However as that is off topic. I will not continue to discuss the simulation aspects on this thread.

It is quite possible both in philosophy and science to have endless and yet equally sound debates. Keep in mind I stated a good philosopher ie one that knows which arguments are equally sound and valid until tested. I also did not state there is no room for philosophy both philosophy and science has their roles.

Well then you agree there is a methodology to test a simulation vs reality. One based on logical science not philosophy. After all philosophy rarely "tests". That alone places science a step above philosophy in determining reality. The testing requirement. Also in order to test how well a model understands or describes reality will depend on the ability to make predictions. (making predictions of course being the mathematics). Which also implies a greater level of understanding of the dynamic than a philosophical debate. The testing aspect will often favor one model over another. This can sometimes end a philisophical debate. A philosophical debate based strictly on philosophy without applying science would never end. Two good philosophers can always find counter arguments to any argument presented. "The tests of what we understand of reality is the strongest form of argument" The tests will tend to favor a particular model or philosophical debate. Without tests the arguments can be endless.

Think about that automated car. Every single time that car encounters identical conditions. It will follow its programming and arrive at the same decision. A self aware human won't always arrive at the same decisions regardless of identical stimuli. If your looking at to test if something is a simulated program. Look for consistent repeatability. A simulation must always follow its programming.

Wouldn't a programmed simulation not follow identical responses to repeated identical stimuli? I would think that could be one test.

Oh I recognized what you were stating about spacetime vs space dynamics. My above post still applies.

ok Everyone is making this far more complex than it really is. Lets look specifically at the belief that the structure of the arms (matter field) will move the same as the laser. Let me ask you if you apply a force of value x when you multiply this with different mass values will the acceleration be the same? [latex] f=ma[/latex] The structure of the arms is far more massive than photons so why believe they would move identically? that one formula alone should tell everyone that would be impossible? Even under freefall systems massless objects will follow a different spacetime path than massive objects. null geodesic vs spacetime geodesics. So why would anyone think the arms will move identically to the lasers.? How can it? The GR formulas and Newton formulas both show this isn't the case. (this isn't a freefall system so were not factoring out mass as per freefall) Simply apply f=ma. a Newton offorce hits a 1 kg object and a 2 kg object. The second object will have half the acceleration of the first object. Now apply that to the arms which is far more massive than the laser beams. Lets just use a force on the x direction. Force can be anything, the arm in the x direction will move different than the arm in the y direction. Simple vector addition tells us that. So now lets look at the detector design. The detector sends a beam of known frequency. The detector splits this frequency to two identical frequencies and sends them down each arm. Then after being reflected back the two beams are recombined. The recombined beams (two identical frequencies) will contructively interfere. The sum of the two beams will equal the original frequency. Now change one axis but not the other by some arbitrary force. The length of one arm is no longer identical to the length of the other arm. What does this do to the beams. Well tge amplitudes of each frequency signal will no longer be in the identical phases. 1 beam will be phase shifted, while the other beam won't. (Does not matter if this is due to GW waves or not any force or vibration will do the same). As the arm lengths or spacetime paths of the two beams are not identical in one arm compared to the other arm. The two signals will be out of phase. When you recombine two signals out of phase you get destructive interference. The signal will be less than the original. Like I stated the type of force makes no difference, 1 arm will not move identical to the other arm because of the Direction of force. In a GW wave this becomes more pronounced. You have multiple vector components in a quadrupole wave. At one instance of your cycle x+ and x- will spread out while y+ and y- contracts. Then half a cycle later the above reverses It would impossible for both arms to move identically. So you will get destructive interferences simply by the differences in length of each arm. (For the lasers each laser will follow a different length of geodesic. The GW wave cannot and will not affect the two geodesics identically. For precisely the same reasons above. The vector direction of the GW wave will have a different influence of two lasers at two angles. (Simple vector addition tells us that) If its that simple why would anyone assume we can't detect a GW wave? Simple they forget to apply the vector addition components. The beam recombination allows us to see the miniscule variations in length on recombination. Regardless of cause of the variations of length. As for a single arm and a laser beam. well the arm is a rigid object, the laser beam is not. So why would they move the same? Under spacetime contractions and expansion in this case. Every point will have different densities so the amount of curvature at each point will be different. A wave itself has different curvature values at each point of the wave. It would be impossible for every point of an object to be influenced identically. (again for the same reasons above. the vector components vary. A field wave has different vector components at every coordinate. When you move that wave through another field. Every coordinate of those fields will have different vector components. It would be impossible for the entire LIGO apparatus to move identically in the same vector value. That is a misconception that every coordinate would be affected identically. It is an impossible misconception. The vector components will vary at every coordinate. (that is what the differential accelerations of the above paper is referring to) The vector components at each coordinate cannot be identical so the sum of vectors at each coordinate cannot be identical. Those differences may be miniscule but our detector is designed to detect these miniscule variations in its design. It does so by looking for the time delays due to changes in spacetime paths of the two frequencies upon recombination. constructive vs destructive interference and the amount of interference. Neither arm can possibly be affected identically (vector components will vary at every coordinate). Lol just like gravity varies at every coordinate around Earth, move another gravitational field variation through that varied gravitational field and every coordinate will move differently at any moment in time. You want a simple way to see this. Watch two water waves collide. Does the resulting waves have the same vector values at every coordinate? of course it doesn't so why would anyone think the LIGO detector would be any different? This is what is shown on those formulas. Every coordinate will vary differently at every coordinate as it must when you have 1 anistropic field moving through another anistropic field. Here is an at home visual aid. Take two clear plastic sheets. Draw on each sheet a graph from a central point assign a different field value at each coordinate. Label sheet a [latex]\eta_{\mu\nu}[/latex] the other sheet [latex]h_{\mu\nu}[/latex] don't worry about what vectors you place at each coordinate. (just make sure they vary) Now slide one sheet over the other sheet in any direction and sum those vectors at each coordinate. The sum of vectors at each coordinate will vary. (lol in a sense GR 1 oh 1) handy tools those plastic sheets with a dry eraser marker. If the two sheets have differences in geometry you need a transformation between the two sheets. if your using the Newton approximation that transform isn't needed. (lol a smart lazy person will just draw vector arrows at coordinate on each sheet) then vector sum them with a ruler and compass at each coordinate). Easy way to model how one field affects another at every coordinate at a given moment in time. A truly creative person could apply this methodology and animate the two fields as they cross each other over time. If you treat each each spacetime coordinate displacement as a vector you can even use this to model the geometry changes. (albiet through additional steps on applying the geometry changes to the coordinate grids.) Lol please keep in mind each sheet will subsequently get changed at each interaction. (good ole action reaction laws) This is only a rough back of envelop visual aid. Orders of approximation the paper refers to see here. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Order_of_approximation

The key point is you have a difference of two seperate field interactions. Treat the arms as a matter field with its own coupling constants. Then treat the photon or electromagnetic field with its own coupling constants. The differences (differentials between these field intaractions can be measurable). Then add on top of the above differences in polarity via the quadrupole nature of spin 2. The differences between x and y arms. Mathematically speaking, which at this level heuristic explanations do not work well is quite detectable. One of the calibration tests of lead weights previously mentioned, demonstrates the degree of variations. That is the trick different fields exhibit different medium like reactions to types of fields. It is the differences we look for. (more often than not under symmetry relations described as anistropies) anistropy being in essence a non uniform relation. It is challenging to recognize these differences without the mathematical background but it is the differences in information exchange between each type of field both within each field and how each field interacts with other fields that is detectable. Reread the articles you mentioned and look for the differences of information/interaction exchange vs matter and radiation type fields. All interactions generate interferance. The nature of different interferences between different field compositions is important. Seek the differences at every geometric event ( coordinate) at a moment in time not every location responds identically The paper you mentioned describes two key dynamics. Differences in how two medium like fields interact. But also polarity differences of the two arms via spin 2 vs frequency of wave relations. Key note those variations has a term under physics ... the quantity of Strain. not easily described for GW waves...at least not heuristically under math easily.(granted knowing how the math applies being essential). Particularly with different fields/mediums.( yes there is a distiction)

Here is the arxiv copy of that paper. It is well written. (I've studied it before numerous times 🙄 https://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0702079 However you should note that paper shows that the arms and lasers are not affected equally. Which allows the detection. "The gravitational wave treats in a different way" the wavelength of light and the length of the interferometer's arm. Physically, the interferometer works by measuring the differential stretching of the x and y arms while the high frequency light wave essentially experiences no inhomogeneities in the medium". The differential stretching is the quadrupole action.

edit never mind I just answered my own question. Then reread the thread and confirmed. lol I had already asked about this but forgot about it. The numbers make sense with the DM variation you provided earlier. Which if I follow correctly is an LSP variation under SO(10) MSSM. If thats true here is a reference for your LSP scattering amplitudes. "Thermal decoupling of WIMPs from first principles" https://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-ph/0612238&ved=0ahUKEwjC7JOew-jUAhVDyoMKHbPYAqkQFggfMAE&usg=AFQjCNFHeuJybwvTjGpiDghXhtFBkBtyiw PS its arxiv on phone atm

Clarification on DM decoupling time. Your still modelling DM as zero spin in your use of the Bose-Einsten statistics correct? edit spin zero, p=0 also you are still setting [latex] T_o=T_v[/latex] correct? edit:Doh forget last question I see the statement. I would still like some clarity on the decoupling time bssed on neutrino background temp. You may have posted the details already but I would like to see that shown as per the proofs of the equations you used...not stating its inaccurate but not familiar with this particular proof. If you happen to have a reference correlating relevant boundaries on DM to allow the scalar treatment of DM for the usage you have that would be great. (I have no objections so far but just looking for clarity ) particularly since the treatments I am familiar with usually has DM freezing out before neutrinos. Hence the details I need. example the interaction cross section for DM and neutrinos in your examination. Hot DM would make sense to decouple close to the same as neutrinos however this would not be the case with Cold DM with regards to Hubble expansion rates.

No I can quarantee after 30 years studying Cosmology most people do not agree. I have an extremely high degree of certainty as I studied throughout those 30 years. (Including Dark Flow in cosmology applications) I never restricted myself to strictly textbook but examined any properly defined model upon its own merits. Keep in mind that last bit refers to mathematically defined. Anyways all that personal blah blah aside. Even you must admit examining the types of possible vectors that can potentially affect a pendulum to a dataset is a logical approach. Aka examine the pendulum itself to see if your DFA can possibly supply the correct vectors (magnitude +direction) Very important. (include the applicable conservation laws) The cosmology application of dark flow as per how the model describes dark flow (under Cosmological applications would have no affect on a pendulum. This is a well researched topic. One of the consequences of well researched topics is upper and lower bounds of possible range values etc. However as this is your model under development. DFA can be whatever you describe. At some point you will need to learn how to model a physical system (dark flow included) in order to ever be accepted as potentially valid under physics. By the way if dark flow was strong enough to affect a pendulum on Earth. Also as it does not involve lunar cycles on Earth under cosmology. Rather it is of non zero value throughout our universe history. A Flow over time on Cosmological scales that has sufficient energy/momentum to affect the mass of that pendulum Our solar system would not have formed. I could step you through Jeans instability which gives rate of infall vs other dynamics. However without a strong background knowledge it would be futile. (So why don't we leave a cosmological dark flow out of our localized Earth, Sun moon system). The math you do not have Primarily range of possible vectors that can match the experiment is examined by your model You cannot have any guess work. Everything must be defined mathematically if that dynamic is involved or potentially involved in a top notch model. Start working on your vectors to the pendulum. That is my professional advice.. take it or ignore it. Though ignoring it means you never push the research of dark flow studies. Plain facts of life. No one will ever advance physics without the required applicable math. Plain and simple

If you have a death wish lol

Thanks I appreciate the accolade

Your shortened anecdote is fine, I would end up with a similar statement.

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/106004-useful-fundamental-formulas-of-qft/#entry991940 Has the QFT breakdown though I hadn't gotten to describe how that post later applies to the Feymann diagrams under S matrix. The VP being the internal lines, real particles the external lines on Feymann diagrams. This Hobson paper relates though not specifically VP, but particles as field excitations. https://arxiv.org/pdf/1204.4616.pdf

Nice..that link happens to have a decent breakdown of the SO(2) doublecover. Though obviously not as detailed as I personally would like 😎

I'm still gathering the datum on the conditions at the event Allais had measured. Mainly looking for the required angle and momentum terms required to cause the anomoly. The Corriolis force was simplistic but doesn't match as close as I would like the pendulum movements before and after the eclipse. (though in right order of magnitude). As its just a curiousity from my perspective I haven't spent a great deal of time on it. Though I can essentially quarantee the eclipse effect on the pendulum will be through an indirect means. Simple vector mathematics tells me this as there is rotation direction change on the pendulum. The dilemna I'm currently facing is finding decent information on Airy precession. I know which elements are used in one of the formulas I posted but little else.

I showed your OP post does not match the definition of a law of conservation. Can you argue the definitions I provided? I prefer a good argument on physics. Let me know when your ready to provide one instead of attacking other posters character.

x posted

Did you not understand a single word about how a conservation law is defined? Blooming bugger I provided both verbal and the math definition. No I did not put words in your mouth you posted an equation whose every term is a rotation. why would a spinning wheel fall outside the scope of discussion on angular momentum? This is a thread dealing with angular momentums conservation laws. This quote was in responds to my query of where is the linear momentum term on tbe spinning wheel? where you stated in this quote you don't use p=mv. You use L=Iw. Did I put words in your mouth? Wrong the conserved quantities only apply when certain criteria are met. Closed systems. You can have more than one conserved quantity in the same system. However a conservation law only applies to 1 quantity being conserved. definition my previous post. All Other arguments are useless and moot the conservation law must satisfy [latex]\frac{dQ}{dt}=0[/latex] which your logic argument does not and yet your logic argument includes the parallels. Which just happens to be torque. That's contradicting yourself from your own logic argument. You first state you must use them then state it is incorrect to do so....

There you go, you just identified that p=mv does not apply in this wheel example. as it uses w and not p So in this system it cannot be conserved as it does not apply. Your logic argument states both angular and linear is conserved. Might not have been your intention but that is how it reads. Yes in a linear system, linear monentum is conserved. Yes in an angular momentum system it is conserved. However in a closed system the conservation laws only apply to systems where the two are. Isolated from each other. in other words in regards to conservation of angular momentum there is no linear momentum as it uses torque not linear momentum. So [latex]\tau=f*L[/latex] where L is the lever arm. [latex] L=r sin\theta[/latex] so [latex]\tau=Frsin\theta[/latex] In terms of velocity conservation of angular momentum becomes [latex]I_1w_1=I_2w_2[/latex] in linear systems f=ma but in rotational systems [latex]f=m\alpha[/latex] now the reason you can use L=r×p is due to the numerous parallels between linear and angular momentum. Here is a list of the parallels http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/mi.html#rlin Lets make this simple. In physics a conserved quantity is a quantity that is constant over time. the mathematical expression is with Q being the quantity that is conserved. [latex]\frac{dQ}{dt}=0[/latex] This is an expression that states q is constant over time hence it is conserved. The conservation law in question is specifically the Isolated quantity that does not change over time Linear systems are conserved in displacement translations. Meaning the laws of physics for this system is unchanged regardless of location. The quantity of q in the above becomes. [latex]\frac{d\vec{p}}{dt}=0[/latex] This is the mathematical expression for a conservation law. YOU MUST WRITE A NEW EXPRESSION for any other quantities that are constant over time Hence the expression for conservation of angular momentum is [latex]\frac{d\vec{L}}{dt}=0[/latex] which means the laws of physics for rotations do not depend on orientation. ONLY 1 quantity can be described by a conservation law. As a conservation law is a descriptive of a conserved QUANTITY You cannot have two conserved quantities under the same law. (Unless that law is describing a complex conjugate) aka [latex]\vec{L}[/latex] a cross product term is a complex vector. However it is still a conserved quantity. 1 quantity per law =GOLDEN RULE [latex]\frac{dq_1+dq_2}{dt}=0[/latex] is not allowed. As quantity is singular not plural....👹 under a law describing a conserved quantity. so you cannot have two vectors (linear momentum and angular momentum under the same law. Not to mentioned the differences under Noether translations and rotations. systems can have multiple conserved quantities but each is a seperate law. ps not yelling just highlighting key points under bold. You state angular momentum and momentum is conserved it does not equal the mathematical expression for a law describing a single conserved quantity (conservation law of quantity or value). By the way this is precisely why Studiot wanted to show you how to properly define a closed isolated state or system. Every conservation law examples other than in this thread. lepton number spin parity energy/momentum charge etc etc all satisfy [latex]\frac{dQ}{dt}=0[/latex]